5 Things to Know About the New Report on NASA's Future

Earlier today, a group of experts organized by the National Research Council released a long-awaited report on the United States human spaceflight program, taking on questions about whether it makes sense to send astronauts to an asteroid or to Mars, and just how NASA could plan and fund such a monumental operation. In the video above, two of the group leaders—Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, Jr., and Cornell professor Jonathan Lunine—explain the findings. But here are the five most important things you need to know.

1. There Are Only Four Places Human Explorers Could Go.

The team started their task by narrowing down the possible locations for a manned expedition, and the list is not long: the moon, an asteroid, the surface of Mars, and the two moons of Mars. That's it. Mercury and Venus are too inhospitable. There are tantalizing targets beyond the asteroid belt, including moons of Jupiter and Saturn that have subsurface oceans and spewing jets of water. But until we get much better at keeping humans alive on long, treacherous space voyages, Titan, Enceladus, and their ilk are best left to robot explorers. Mars is about as far as we can go, and it's no gimmie.

2. Why Are We Even Doing This?

In the video above, Lunine says: "There are two main sets of rationales for supporting human spaceflight: There are pragmatic rationales, and there are aspirational ones. The aspirational rationales are tied to the enduring questions. Pragmatic rationales alone are inadequate to justify human spaceflight. Aspirational and pragmatic rationales in combination argue for a continuation of our nation's human spaceflight program."

To unpack that dense block of professor-speak: He's saying that there's not enough to gain in terms of hard scientific discoveries to justify the risk and expense of sending humans to exotic extraterrestrial locales. (Robot explorers might not be as smart as we are—at least not yet—but you also don't have to feed them and bring them home at the end of the mission.) It's only worth sending humans to Mars because the human spirit says we must go, we must find out how far we can explore. That aspirational rationale, combined with what explorers would learn out there about the solar system and maybe even how to protect the Earth from an asteroid, make all the trouble worthwhile.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

3. They Need More Money.

People support space exploration, Lunine says. But they don't necessarily support spending more money on space exploration—it's "not a high priority" for most Americans. And NASA can't send humans to boldly go anywhere without more money than it has now. "We found that a sustainable program will require a budget that increases somewhat faster than inflation," Daniels says.

4. And They Need Political Stability and Long-Term Support.

The most important block in the whole report comes from Daniels, who says:

"Our committee concluded that any human exploration program will only succeed if it is appropriately funded and receives a sustained commitment on the part of those who govern our nation. That commitment cannot change direction election after election. Our elected leaders are the critical enablers of the nation's investment in human spaceflight, and only they can assure that the leadership, personnel, governance, and resources are in place in our human exploration program."

It seems obvious when you say it like that. But changing political tides and unfulfilled political mandates have kept NASA stuck in neutral over the past few years. The ambitious Constellation plan that the George W. Bush administration backed, which proposed to send humans back to the moon and to Mars, lagged behind its deadlines. Eventually President Obama killed Constellation and the idea of a return moon visit, pushing for a visit to an asteroid or Mars instead. But this new report by the National Research Council says that Obama's plan is also too underfunded to meet its goals. What if the next president scraps NASA's current work in favor of his or her own plan? The life span of a deep space mission, including all the research and lead-up that it takes to make it happen, is longer than a presidential term, yet NASA will always be subject to the whims of Washington.

5. Don't Fear Teamwork–Even With China.

With the end goal of a manned Mars visit, the report authors recommend that the U.S. not be afraid to collaborate with commercial and international partners. That includes China and emerging spacefaring nations such as India. They're probably right that a group of nations is more likely to succeed in such a major mission than a single nation. But Congress will no doubt look at the current crisis with Russia over the Ukraine, which imperils American spaceflight operations, before even considering a partnership with China.

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Popular Mechanics participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.